The Great Jesus Cracker Abuse Challenge

[Trance Gemini]

Free Thinker, the online UK magazine has issued a challenge to all called the: The Great Jesus Cracker Abuse Challenge.

Quote.

THE zany story that broke this week about the hijacking in Florida of a Jesus cracker – or Corpus Crispie – and the fear of 

Catholics that it might be "abused" by its kidnapper – got us wondering what indignities Freethinker readers might heap on 

a blessed Eucharist, should they ever decide to take one hostage.

So we decided to launch The Great Jesus Cracker Abuse Challenge. Let us know by July 31 what you would do with a holy 

wafer. 

More creative entrants might even like to film their abuse, and post their videos on YouTube.

But we implore you to make sure that no children or animals are harmed in the process.

The entry judged the most imaginative wins a year's free subscription to the print edition of the Freethinker.

End Quote.

For those who might be interested in participating, their site and the full article is located here: http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

Have fun ;-)

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[random]

I wrote a request in "Atheism vs. Christianity" group.
I'll also copy it here, just in case there are Theists who don't read
the other group.

I have a small request for the Theists in this group.
All I want, is to believe that we live in a relatively sane world, so
I want a short confirmation that you see it as it is, nothing more
than people going insane over a cracker.
From my side, I promise not to put you in the same group as these
people, and not to ask you any justification for their madness.

Can I have a "we are not with them" over here?

And if it's not too hard to ask for a quote of a Church official that
feels the same, from any published comment or article, that will be
great.

On Jul 12, 6:28 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Free Thinker, the online UK magazine has issued a challenge to all called
> the: The Great Jesus Cracker Abuse Challenge.
> Quote.
>
> THE zany story that broke this week about the hijacking in Florida of a Jesus

> cracker<http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/07/09/catholics-go-crackers-over-ch...>–

> or Corpus Crispie – and the fear of
>
> Catholics that it might be "abused" by its kidnapper – got us wondering what

> indignities *Freethinker* readers might heap on

>
> a blessed Eucharist, should they ever decide to take one hostage.
>
> So we decided to launch The Great Jesus Cracker Abuse Challenge. Let us know

> by July 31 what *you* would do with a holy

>
> wafer.
>
> More creative entrants might even like to film their abuse, and post their
> videos on YouTube.
>
> But we implore you to make sure that no children or animals are harmed in
> the process.
>
> The entry judged the most imaginative wins a year's free subscription to the

> print edition of the *Freethinker*.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Let us grant your hypothesis: it's just a cracker. This is like saying
the US flag is "just a piece of cloth". It would be as unreasonable
to desecrate the cracker as burn the flag, even assuming that cracker
were a symbol of Christ, as the protestants believe.

Now consider that the Catholics don't believe it merely symbolizes
Christ as flag symbolizes country. Can you be open-minded enough to
believe that when a billion Catholics say they believe this is
literally the body of Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe, we in
fact believe it? If not, why not?

[Alan Wostenberg]

While the're having fun, let us pray as our Lord did: "forgive them,
Father, for they know not what they do"

re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross

[random]

I'll reply to your comments later in this post. But I want to use this
space to remind you of another similar symbolic story: Do you remember
the "Muhammad teddy bead" story?
Was your reaction to that story the same to the the one about the
cracker?

On Jul 13, 12:39 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us grant your hypothesis: it's just a cracker. This is like saying
> the US flag is "just a piece of cloth". It would be as unreasonable
> to desecrate the cracker as burn the flag, even assuming that cracker
> were a symbol of Christ, as the protestants believe.
>

Symbols are funny thing.
People get so concerned about them, that they often forget what they
are supposed to symbolize. In this case, love and forgiveness.

Also, when you intentionally burn a flag, you actually express your
hate to what the flag symbolizes. It is not the flag itself that is
important, but your intentions and actions.
From what I've seen in the replies, the Christians are more concerned
about the actual cracker than to what it symbolizes.

> Now consider that the Catholics don't believe it merely symbolizes
> Christ as flag symbolizes country. Can you be open-minded enough to
> believe that when a billion Catholics say they believe this is
> literally the body of Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe, we in
> fact believe it? If not, why not?

So... stealing the "body of Christ" is wrong, but EATING it is
accepted?
I sure hope no one actually sees this literally as the body of Christ,
because that would be cannibalisms.

[Trance Gemini]

I believe that Alan but I frankly I think they're over-reacting. They're trying to get this kid tossed out of school for a silly prank and by the way kids pull pranks using the American flag all the time.

Now they've hired security. What on earth do they think Pharyngula's going to do, invade their Convention and tell Cracker jokes.

They're taking this way too far. To a ridiculous extreme in fact.

And frankly the farther they take it the less sympathy people are going to have for them and the more this is going to become a huge worldwide joke.

 

[4praise]

There is a Catholic belief about communion called "Transubstantiation"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation - the wafer turns
into Jesus literally during communion.

So to Catholics it's not just a symbol.

> I have a small request for the Theists in this group.
> All I want, is to believe that we live in a relatively sane world, so
> I want a short confirmation that you see it as it is, nothing more
> than people going insane over a cracker.

I don't subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation so in a way I
agree that their concern about getting the wafer back safe and sound
is "misguided".

[rappoccio]

Here's a question for you:

Why is it okay for Catholics to say that homosexual marriage is an
abomination to God (hereby disrespecting all homosexual couples on the
planet) but the minute someone says something disrespectful about what
THEY believe, then all of a sudden we're supposed to take their
objection seriously because it's important to them?

How about this as a deal:

Get the Catholic Church to shut the fuck up about denouncing the
"evils" (so-called) of homosexual marriage and allow their parishoners
to vote in favor of it, and you can have all the crackers you want.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 12, 5:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us grant your hypothesis: it's just a cracker. This is like saying
> the US flag is "just a piece of cloth". It would be as unreasonable
> to desecrate the cracker as burn the flag, even assuming that cracker
> were a symbol of Christ, as the protestants believe.

Here's the problem:

Crackers and flags don't have much intrinsic value.
Ergo, their value is value placed upon it by others.
"Desecration" implies that the perpetrator is aware of this value, and
played off of it. This requires intent.

Burning the flag in protest requires a certain type of intent. A type
of intent not seen in simply taking a cracker to show a friend.

Neither warrant physical abuse of the "perpetrator"

[Alan Wostenberg]

Random, afraid I don't know the "Muhammad teddy bead" story. You hope
“no one actually sees this literally as the Body of Christ, because
that would be cannibalism”. That it is cannibalism was just the
pagans said of the first Christians. This mistake is understandable.

Another poster provided a wikipedia link to transubstantiation, a
doctrine to defend against the twin errors of (a) it’s a symbol (b)
it’s cannibalistic. It hinges on a distinction in everyday life
between between a thing and it’s outward appearances.

Consider the body you know best: your own. Observe it has none of the
same molecules as it did when you were an infant. And yet you do not
hesitate to call it the same body. To what, then, does the term "my
body" refer?

[Alan Wostenberg]

I agree desecration requires intent. I wasn't referring to the
original incident, but this thread in which the original poster
invites people to "have fun" with the "great Jesus Cracker Abuse
Challenge". I was referring to the PZ Myers challenge described at
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208 who writes "I’ll
show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare".

[random]

On Jul 13, 9:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Random, afraid I don't know the "Muhammad teddy bead" story.

I wrote it wrong, it was supposed to be "teddy bear".
Anyway, here i one of the articles about it, and the related wiki:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

> You hope
> “no one actually sees this literally as the Body of Christ, because
> that would be cannibalism”. That it is cannibalism was just the
> pagans said of the first Christians. This mistake is understandable.
>
> Another poster provided a wikipedia link to transubstantiation, a
> doctrine to defend against the twin errors of (a) it’s a symbol (b)
> it’s cannibalistic. It hinges on a distinction in everyday life
> between between a thing and it’s outward appearances.
>

I'll be honest with you, even after reading it, I still can't
understand it. Probably the leaps of faith required from me to
understand it are just too big.
Fortunately, the main issue is the reaction of the crowd.

Even if somehow the conflict is resolved, is taking the "body of
Christ" outside worse than eating it?
Was the reaction appropriate, especially since no harm was intended?

> Consider the body you know best: your own. Observe it has none of the
> same molecules as it did when you were an infant. And yet you do not
> hesitate to call it the same body. To what, then, does the term "my
> body" refer?

There is a strong connection between what I regard as "my body", and
what I can feel, sense and control.
For example, I can control the movement of some parts of my body, and
I can sense when some parts are touched. This is a very simplified
explanation , but it should be enough.

[Alan Wostenberg]

You ask how can Catholics condemn homosexual unions as intrinsically
immoral, and complain when people desecrate the Body of Christ? A fair
question. It comes down to intent. For example, the main who aims his
gun at a deer and unintentionally kills a man is not guilty of murder,
though the second man is just as dead as if the first did intend
murder.

A doctor tells his patient “you will die of this cancer” and his
intent is to tell the truth, though the patient may take offence. The
Catholic, like the Doctor, is intending to speak the truth, and the
unintended side effect is some people take offence. In the case of the
desecration of a host or a flag, the *intent* is to offend.

[The Belly Bionic]

Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> You ask how can Catholics condemn homosexual unions as intrinsically
> immoral, and complain when people desecrate the Body of Christ? A fair
> question. It comes down to intent. For example, the main who aims his
> gun at a deer and unintentionally kills a man is not guilty of murder,
> though the second man is just as dead as if the first did intend
> murder.
>
> A doctor tells his patient “you will die of this cancer” and his
> intent is to tell the truth, though the patient may take offence.

Perhaps you know different sorts of people than I do, but I have yet to
hear of a single person who was personally offended by a doctor giving
them a diagnosis. There's a world of difference between a doctor giving
a patient a diagnosis and a religious group trying to prevent my
marriage. The doctor has objective, verifiable evidence of the
diagnosis, and makes no moral judgment. The doctor tells the patient
"You have cancer." not "You have cancer because you're a sinner and you
need to stop sinning so you won't die." On the other hand, the
religious person is just pushing their beliefs onto other people with
absolutely no care for the offense they cause, and then acting as though
it were the worst thing to ever happen when someone else doesn't care
about offending them.

[random]

On Jul 13, 10:27 am, The Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > You ask how can Catholics condemn homosexual unions as intrinsically
> > immoral, and complain when people desecrate the Body of Christ? A fair
> > question. It comes down to intent. For example, the main who aims his
> > gun at a deer and unintentionally kills a man is not guilty of murder,
> > though the second man is just as dead as if the first did intend
> > murder.
>
> > A doctor tells his patient “you will die of this cancer” and his
> > intent is to tell the truth, though the patient may take offence.
>
> Perhaps you know different sorts of people than I do, but I have yet to
> hear of a single person who was personally offended by a doctor giving
> them a diagnosis. There's a world of difference between a doctor giving
> a patient a diagnosis and a religious group trying to prevent my
> marriage. The doctor has objective, verifiable evidence of the
> diagnosis, and makes no moral judgment. The doctor tells the patient
> "You have cancer." not "You have cancer because you're a sinner and you
> need to stop sinning so you won't die." On the other hand, the
> religious person is just pushing their beliefs onto other people with
> absolutely no care for the offense they cause, and then acting as though
> it were the worst thing to ever happen when someone else doesn't care
> about offending them.
>

Furthermore, the main topic here is not if the doctor did the right
thing or if the patient had a right to be offended. The main issue is
the reaction to the act.
If you translate the responses to the current analogy, the patient
heard the diagnostics, and as a reply he tried to beat the doctor and
demanded the doctor to be fired.

While in a way, the immediate response in both cases can be understood
as a rushed emotional attack, it cannot be justified, and a support
from the Church for these actions is even less justified.

[Trance Gemini]

You may have to kidnap and threaten to abuse one of their precious crackers to hold them to this one ;-)

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 12, 9:24 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let us grant your hypothesis: it's just a cracker. This is like saying
> > the US flag is "just a piece of cloth".  It would be as unreasonable
> > to desecrate the cracker as burn the flag, even assuming that cracker
> > were a symbol of Christ, as the protestants believe.
>
> Here's the problem:
>
> Crackers and flags don't have much intrinsic value.
> Ergo, their value is value placed upon it by others.
> "Desecration" implies that the perpetrator is aware of this value, and
> played off of it. This requires intent.
>
> Burning the flag in protest requires a certain type of intent. A type
> of intent not seen in simply taking a cracker to show a friend.

That student made amends in his letter to the Church. Case closed. I
was referring to title of this thread, and the original poster,
inviting people to "have fun" with the "great Jesus Cracker Abuse
Challenge".  

We are trying to show how unbelievably silly it is to make a federal case out of a student taking a cracker.

Could this not have been handled in a friendly way in the first place?

Did the Church have to be so hostile, intimidating, and threatening to the student?

Was there a reason why they couldn't have just taken the student aside and talked to him quietly like a human being and explained their concerns?

 

I was referring to  the PZ Myers challenge described at
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208 who writes "I'll
show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare".

[Trance Gemini]

The student, however, had no such intent, and yet there was a strong over-reaction. Why?

 

[rappoccio]

On Jul 13, 2:07 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You ask how can Catholics condemn homosexual unions as intrinsically
> immoral,

No, an abomination.

> and complain when people desecrate the Body of Christ? A fair
> question. It comes down to intent. For example, the main who aims his
> gun at a deer and unintentionally kills a man is not guilty of murder,
> though the second man is just as dead as if the first did intend
> murder.
>
> A doctor tells his patient “you will die of this cancer” and his
> intent is to tell the truth, though the patient may take offence. The
> Catholic, like the Doctor, is intending to speak the truth, and the
> unintended side effect is some people take offence. In the case of the
> desecration of a host or a flag, the *intent* is to offend.

How do you know that "desecrating" a cracker is not intended to
demonstrate the truth also: That there is more stock placed in said
cracker than in actual living human beings.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 13, 6:00 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 9:24 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 5:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Let us grant your hypothesis: it's just a cracker. This is like saying
> > > > the US flag is "just a piece of cloth".  It would be as unreasonable
> > > > to desecrate the cracker as burn the flag, even assuming that cracker
> > > > were a symbol of Christ, as the protestants believe.
>
> > > Here's the problem:
>
> > > Crackers and flags don't have much intrinsic value.
> > > Ergo, their value is value placed upon it by others.
> > > "Desecration" implies that the perpetrator is aware of this value, and
> > > played off of it. This requires intent.
>
> > > Burning the flag in protest requires a certain type of intent. A type
> > > of intent not seen in simply taking a cracker to show a friend.
> > That student made amends in his letter to the Church. Case closed. I
> > was referring to title of this thread, and the original poster,
> > inviting people to "have fun" with the "great Jesus Cracker Abuse
> > Challenge".
>
> We are trying to show how unbelievably silly it is to make a federal case
> out of a student taking a cracker.
>

Can't they just say that if the cracker is stolen, it's un-
transubstantiated and be done with it anyway?

They say that if the cracker has a few things said over it, it
transforms from cracker to Christ, why can't they just say something
else to make it go back from Christ to cracker again?

You know, like Calvin and Hobbes playing "Calvinball". When you make
up the rules as you go along, there's nothing stopping you from making
more.

> Could this not have been handled in a friendly way in the first place?
>
> Did the Church have to be so hostile, intimidating, and threatening to the
> student?
>
> Was there a reason why they couldn't have just taken the student aside and
> talked to him quietly like a human being and explained their concerns?
>
> > I was referring to  the PZ Myers challenge described at

> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208who writes "I'll

[Trance Gemini]

Very good point. Sometimes I wonder if they're just looking for reasons to nail themselves to their proverbial crosses and play victim.

> Could this not have been handled in a friendly way in the first place?
>
> Did the Church have to be so hostile, intimidating, and threatening to the
> student?
>
> Was there a reason why they couldn't have just taken the student aside and
> talked to him quietly like a human being and explained their concerns?
>
> > I was referring to  the PZ Myers challenge described at
> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208who writes "I'll
> > show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare".

>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Trance Gemini
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> --Voltaire
>
> Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
>
> Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Dag Yo]

> They say that if the cracker has a few things said over it, it
> transforms from cracker to Christ, why can't they just say something
> else to make it go back from Christ to cracker again?

Maybe the spell to make it transform back only has a limited range, or
needs to be within earshot or something like that. And I think there
is precedent for this too, like no one gets to do long distance
"laying of hands" magic. Or perhaps it's a targeting issue; like if
they cast the spell to turn it back into a cracker it would hit all
the transubstantiated crackers around the world at that time --
thereby making it so anyone who was about to take communion ends up
eating a regular old cracker rather than the body of a dude who lives
in another dimension.

> > >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208whowrites "I'll

[rappoccio]

On Jul 14, 12:42 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, this gives them all sorts of stumps to stand on and preach.

>
>
>
> > > Could this not have been handled in a friendly way in the first place?
>
> > > Did the Church have to be so hostile, intimidating, and threatening to
> > the
> > > student?
>
> > > Was there a reason why they couldn't have just taken the student aside
> > and
> > > talked to him quietly like a human being and explained their concerns?
>
> > > > I was referring to  the PZ Myers challenge described at

> > > >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13208whowrites "I'll

[rappoccio]

On Jul 14, 3:27 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > They say that if the cracker has a few things said over it, it
> > transforms from cracker to Christ, why can't they just say something
> > else to make it go back from Christ to cracker again?
>
> Maybe the spell to make it transform back only has a limited range, or
> needs to be within earshot or something like that.

Exactly. Maybe it goes back to crackerdom the second it's brought out
of the doors that isn't in a special "blessed" container.

>  And I think there
> is precedent for this too, like no one gets to do long distance
> "laying of hands" magic.  Or perhaps it's a targeting issue; like if
> they cast the spell to turn it back into a cracker it would hit all
> the transubstantiated crackers around the world at that time --

LOL!

> thereby making it so anyone who was about to take communion ends up
> eating a regular old cracker rather than the body of a dude who lives
> in another dimension.

Exactly. See? I should do some consulting for the Catholic Church. All
sorts of possibilities open up !